The main prosecution forensic case

[Mr. Gee]

You lack of reasoning is what is absurd.  Jeremy clearly staged many thing in support of the narrative he tried to sell regarding Sheila committing the murders.  We have no way to know everything he tried to plant in support of it.  We have no way to know whether the socks were there of Jeremy picked up socks that had been bled on and stuck them right next to Sheila's body in hope that police would think she wore them during the killings.  Mentioning this is a possibility is not absurd but rather using my head.

You choose not to use yours because if you did so you would be forced to admit Jeremy is guilty but your bias prevents you from being rational.

 

Don't show yourself up for the stupid guy you actually are scipio. I stand my ground on this one because what you are suggesting is so absurd that it belongs in the stories of the starship Enterprise.

[Patti]

Just realised what's happened.When you get a pink " notice " I've taken them as posted and just carried on.2 posts. I'd forgotten what I'd said as well,but it was nothing inflammatory.
Just coffee Patti------------with nothing in it. I was watching the news at the same time,so multi-tasking isn't my thing now. As well as posting on the news forum.

Has Adam got you in a tither hahahahaha...No worries Lookout. 

[Patti]

Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?

Both Cook and AE said it though, so this might mean there is something to it...There only appears Woodcock saying there was sugar on the floor.  I can't see any sugar on the floor in photo's, but on saying that they are fine grains, so may be difficult to see. 

[scipio_usmc]

Not at all. I just don't think it important enough to consider.
Or should we rather believe your silly scenario that because the sugar was spilt in the fight in the kitchen Jeremy thought of putting socks next to Sheila so as to make people think that she wore socks to protect her feet from blood and sugar so her feet would appear clean and spotless so people would think that because she had clean feet they would come to the conclusion that she couldn't have committed the murders, then look at the socks and change their mind and say oh she must have worn socks whilst she committed the murders that;s why her feet were clean.

But you'd rather think of that far fetched scenario rather than just thinking that if Jeremy wanted to make people think she wore socks he would have just put socks on her feet? And you think that "I" don't use my reason.

I didn't say he definitely put them there.  On the contrary I said we have no way to know whether they were there prior to her being killed or not.  I noted the possibility that he stuck them there with the hope it would be used to explain her clean feet.  That is a possibility, he staged plenty of things though he did so largely ineptly including the bible staging which a defense expert admitted was placed on the blood after she died thus supporter her being murdered.

I noted that not even the defense ended up trying to make the clam she wore those socks though because the blood wasn't impact spatter but Jeremy didn't know enough about the topic to be able to know the difference between blood in general and impact spatter and why spatter would be so much more important.  He only knew enough to be dangerous and ended up staging the scene ineptly.

[Caroline]

What benefit would be served by Jeremy staging an altercation in the kitchen?  If Jeremy simultaneously injured Sheila's body to make it appear she had been involved in an altercation and attempted to plant Nevill's blood on her then in that case it would have a purpose.  Staging it and leaving her body so clean and without injuries she would have incurred would hurt instead of helping because it suggests Sheila wasn't the killer.   

In the meantime it is clear the gun was empty when they entered the kitchen and that Nevill's wounds were not severe enough to knock him out so it is hard to imagine him allowing the killer to reload unmolested.

So if you're saying there really was an altercation, you still have the same problem. Why didn't he stage manage Sheila to look as though she had fought with Nevill if that's what happened? He couldn't have thought no one would notice the mess. So, I still say the kitchen could have been staged.

[Caroline]

Both Cook and AE said it though, so this might mean there is something to it...There only appears Woodcock saying there was sugar on the floor.  I can't see any sugar on the floor in photo's, but on saying that they are fine grains, so may be difficult to see. 

Cook and AE are saying someone told them but Woodcock is saying he actually saw it for himself. So, he would have to be lying - why would he lie?

[scipio_usmc]

Both Cook and AE said it though, so this might mean there is something to it...There only appears Woodcock saying there was sugar on the floor.  I can't see any sugar on the floor in photo's, but on saying that they are fine grains, so may be difficult to see. 

Cook and AE have completely different tales.  Cook said he was under the impression the raid team made the mess while AE said she was under the impression those cleaning up the scene did it.  Neither of them named the source who supposedly told them the claims and clearly the sources were not the raid team.  They didn't hear anything from the horse's mouth.  That makes their claims worthless.  At MOST hearing a claim like such which doesn't come from the horse's mouth warrants trying to go to the horse's mouth to find out the truth.  That means going to the raid team which is what the Court of Appeals did to resolve the claim.

We already saw that what AE was told wasn't that reliable since someone supposedly told her June and Sheila's bodies were in the bed. The grapevine is unreliable that is why hearsay is inadmissible in court- because it is not considered reliable.

 


 

[lookout]

And there certainly was a lot of hearsay,assumptions and surmising on some WS's during the trial. Because there would have appeared to have been n'owt else.

[scipio_usmc]

So if you're saying there really was an altercation, you still have the same problem. Why didn't he stage manage Sheila to look as though she had fought with Nevill if that's what happened? He couldn't have thought no one would notice the mess. So, I still say the kitchen could have been staged.

Clearly he didn't know how to stage her body so as to indicate she had been in an altercation.  He didn't know how to stage spatter either and actually it isn't that easy. He had to hope police would ignore the problem just like he hoped the lack of GSR and high velocity impact spatter would be ignored.  That is why he did other things he did to frame her and convince police she did it.

You are suggesting he artificially created the problem though which makes no sense.  Staging is done for a reason to conceal something. It is not done for no reason. If anything he had a reason to try concealing an altercation occurred as opposed to staging one. 

You need ignoring that Nevill was being beaten and knocked out.  He didn't move around the kitchen much while he was being beaten and then killed.  Knocking over the sugar as they fought but then being knocked over and beaten would not put him in a position or marching across the sugar or broken glass.  the killer though would have to have been stomping on it not only to beat him but to go reload, to shoot him, to go put the moderator away etc.  His blood was on the floor after he died so clearly only the killer would have the opportunity to step in that.

I can't imagine what erroneous beliefs Jeremy would have where he would think that staging an altercation would increase the chances of police believing Sheila was responsible if anything it does the opposite. The investigators who wanted to believe she did it ignored the evidence of the altercation and said it didn't happen to try to support their narrative of her doing it.  So I can't even find a potential benefit he erroneously thought he could gain.

In the meantime the wounds to his arms were real defensive wounds, the bashes to his head clearly came before he was shot so no evidence of staging wounds afterwards to pretend there was an altercation.  Plus why would he do nothing as the killer reloaded?  The evidence is that it was genuine.

[scipio_usmc]

And there certainly was a lot of hearsay,assumptions and surmising on some WS's during the trial. Because there would have appeared to have been n'owt else.

When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise.  The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.

The log report that 2 bodies were in the kitchen is a perfect example. The person was relayed the information about a female body being seen then relayed the evidence Nevill was a male and thought that meant two bodies it wasn't realized they were the same body. It is easy for people to misunderstand what others are telling them or to infer things erroneously.  Did the AE and the press misunderstand when they reported bodies on the beds or did the people who relayed it to the press misunderstand and report the wrong thing to the press and AE?  There is no way to know for sure and the only way to even attempt to find out who made the error would be to find out exactly who told AE and who told the press and ask them what they understood at the time and have tried ot convey to AE and the press.   But that would at most tell you how the rumors came about not have any bearing on what actually occurred you go to firsthand witnesses to find out what occurred. 

[lookout]

When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise.  The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.

The log report that 2 bodies were in the kitchen is a perfect example. The person was relayed the information about a female body being seen then relayed the evidence Nevill was a male and thought that meant two bodies it wasn't realized they were the same body. It is easy for people to misunderstand what others are telling them or to infer things erroneously.  Did the AE and the press misunderstand when they reported bodies on the beds or did the people who relayed it to the press misunderstand and report the wrong thing to the press and AE?  There is no way to know for sure and the only way to even attempt to find out who made the error would be to find out exactly who told AE and who told the press and ask them what they understood at the time and have tried ot convey to AE and the press.   But that would at most tell you how the rumors came about not have any bearing on what actually occurred you go to firsthand witnesses to find out what occurred.

When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise.  The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.


This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.

[Jan]

Studying the minds 'in depth' is nice. But you can't say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Although you have all the crime scene evidence. Although you criticised David's attempt.

But YOU cant say how Jeremy committed it - You can only guess . Because so far he has never let on

So no matter how many times you assume the scenario - you may never know whether it is true.

[scipio_usmc]

When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise.  The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.


This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.

What is wrong?  It is wrong to go to the witnesses who entered the house to ask what they saw and found? That is the right way to do it.  The wrong way is to listen to rumor which is what you often try to do.  Any rumors that support Jeremy you raise and rely upon.

The only witnesses to a majority or murders are the killers.  The notion unless there is a witness there should be no trial is absurd.  Circumstantial evidence can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as reliably or even more reliably than eyewitnesses since eyewitnesses often are mistaken about the identity of criminals.   

There are so many different problems with Jeremy's claim he received a phonecall from Nevill.  The problems range from Nevill not having a reason to call Jeremy to not having the opportunity.  The event clearly started when the killer walked into the master bedroom and opened fire 10 times on June and Nevill then with the gun empty it proceeded to the kitchen.  Nevill never had the opportunity let alone a reason to call Jeremy.   This alone should send great doubt into the minds of those who want to defend Jeremy.

But it gets worse Jeremy called Julie before he called police then lied about it and said he called police first.  If Jeremy actually received the call he claims why would he call Julie at all let alone before police?  Someone receiving such a call would either rush over or call police.

Even worse yet Julie says he had been planning to kill them a long time and admitted he was responsible.

Worst of all though, if Sheila had actually committed the murders then she would have had medium velocity impact spatter from Nevill on her clothing and body, high velocity impact spatter from June and Nevill and GSR/soot on her clothing from firing the 25 shots and her blood would have been int he rifle from her fatal shot.  Instead her blood was in the moderator proving it was used to kill her then removed and put away in the closet by the killer.

You have nothing to refute the evidence you just brand Julie a liar and say the evidence was planted because you choose to believe Jeremy is innocent regardless of the evidence.  you just ignore the evidence and choose to believe Jeremy is innocent because you want to not because there is any evidence to support it.

That is not evidence of an MOJ it amounts to you choosing to believe there was an MOJ though you have no rational basis to support such a belief.       

[scipio_usmc]

But YOU cant say how Jeremy committed it - You can only guess . Because so far he has never let on

So no matter how many times you assume the scenario - you may never know whether it is true.

The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt Jeremy did it by shooting them 25 times with the Anschutz.  The evidence proves how he did it so we do in fact know. 

[Caroline]

Clearly he didn't know how to stage her body so as to indicate she had been in an altercation.  He didn't know how to stage spatter either and actually it isn't that easy. He had to hope police would ignore the problem just like he hoped the lack of GSR and high velocity impact spatter would be ignored.  That is why he did other things he did to frame her and convince police she did it.

You are suggesting he artificially created the problem though which makes no sense.  Staging is done for a reason to conceal something. It is not done for no reason. If anything he had a reason to try concealing an altercation occurred as opposed to staging one. 

You need ignoring that Nevill was being beaten and knocked out.  He didn't move around the kitchen much while he was being beaten and then killed.  Knocking over the sugar as they fought but then being knocked over and beaten would not put him in a position or marching across the sugar or broken glass.  the killer though would have to have been stomping on it not only to beat him but to go reload, to shoot him, to go put the moderator away etc.  His blood was on the floor after he died so clearly only the killer would have the opportunity to step in that.

I can't imagine what erroneous beliefs Jeremy would have where he would think that staging an altercation would increase the chances of police believing Sheila was responsible if anything it does the opposite. The investigators who wanted to believe she did it ignored the evidence of the altercation and said it didn't happen to try to support their narrative of her doing it.  So I can't even find a potential benefit he erroneously thought he could gain.

In the meantime the wounds to his arms were real defensive wounds, the bashes to his head clearly came before he was shot so no evidence of staging wounds afterwards to pretend there was an altercation.  Plus why would he do nothing as the killer reloaded?  The evidence is that it was genuine.

Actually you're saying that - I was suggesting something else. Jeremy didn't just indicate that Sheila had a gun, he also indicated that 'She had gone crazy'. The disarray may not have been set up to look like an altercation but simply to show that someone had indeed 'gone crazy'.